United States Court of Appeals - Jones Day Issues & Appeals

88 Pages·2013·0.57 MB·English

No. 11-16022

United States Court of Appeals
For the Ninth Circuit
_______________
MICHAEL SHAW FAUSETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LEBLANC et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California
Case No. 2:08-cv-01724-RLH-VPC
Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt (visiting from the District of Nevada)

REPLACEMENT OPENING BRIEF FOR
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

Louis K. Fisher
Tara Stuckey Morrissey*
Sarah S. Podmaniczky
JONES DAY
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001-2113
[phone]

*Appointed through the
Ninth Circuit Pro Bono Program

Attorneys for Appellant
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................................................................. 1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES.............................................................................. 3
STATUTES AND RULES ....................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................. 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................... 6
A. Background .......................................................................................... 6
1. Fausett’s Back Problems And Surgeries .................................... 6
2. Fausett Returns To Mule Creek ................................................. 8
B. Fausett’s Complaint ............................................................................ 10
1. Preliminary Rulings ................................................................. 11
2. The Court Denies Fausett Appointed Counsel ........................ 12
3. Fausett Tries To Add Claims Against Martinez And
Galloway .................................................................................. 13
4. Discovery ................................................................................. 14
5. The Magistrate Judge Refuses To Appoint A Neutral
Expert ....................................................................................... 17
6. Denial Of Fausett’s Motion For Service Of Subpoenas .......... 19
7. Nurse Cooper Is Dismissed ...................................................... 20
8. Summary Judgment ................................................................. 21
(a) The Staff’s Motion For Summary Judgment ................. 21
(b) Fausett’s Motions For Summary Judgment ................... 22
(c) The District Court’s Rulings On Summary
Judgment ........................................................................ 23
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 24
STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................... 26
ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 27
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
I. THIS COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
RULINGS, WHICH SEVERELY HAMPERED FAUSETT’S
ABILITY TO VINDICATE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS .............. 27
A. The Court Erred By Failing To Appoint Counsel .............................. 28
1. The Court Failed To Appreciate Its Discretion To
Appoint Counsel And Failed To Adequately Explain Its
Reasons For Denying Counsel ................................................. 29
2. “Exceptional Circumstances” Warrant Appointment Of
Counsel ..................................................................................... 32
B. The Court Erred By Failing To Appoint An Expert Pursuant To
Federal Rule Of Evidence 706 ........................................................... 36
1. The Court’s Denial Was Based On An Error Of Law,
Thus Preventing The Court From Exercising Its
Discretion Under Rule 706 ...................................................... 37
2. The Appellate Guideposts Confirm That The Court
Should Have Appointed A Neutral Expert .............................. 39
(a) Appointment of an expert would promote accurate
factfinding ...................................................................... 40
(b) The parties’ evidence did not adequately reveal the
facts ................................................................................ 42
(c) The nature of the claim counsels in favor of
appointing an expert ...................................................... 43
C. The Court Erred In Denying Fausett’s Motion For Subpoenas ......... 43
D. This Court Should Review The Magistrate Judge’s Rulings ............. 46
E. The Magistrate Judge Lacked Jurisdiction Over Fausett’s Case ....... 50
II. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE STAFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ................................................. 51
A. Deliberate Indifference Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ............................... 53
B. The Magistrate Judge’s Rulings Prevented Fausett From
Obtaining An Adequate Summary Judgment Record ........................ 53
- ii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
C. The District Court Improperly Ignored Fausett’s Evidence,
Which Revealed Disputes Of Material Fact ....................................... 54
1. The District Court Failed To Consider Evidence That
Fausett Required A Wheelchair ............................................... 55
2. The District Court Failed To Determine Whether The
Pain Medication Prescribed By The Staff Was An
Adequate Substitute For Valium .............................................. 58
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 61
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ......................................................................
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ......................................................................
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..........................................................................
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................................................
ADDENDUM .............................................................................................................

- iii -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page
CASES
Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am.,
390 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................ 28, 32, 35
Brown v. Plata,
131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011) ........................................................................................ 49
Byrd v. Stone,
94 F.3d 217 (6th Cir. 1996) .......................................................................... 43, 45
Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Dominick D’Andrea, Inc.,
150 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1998) ................................................................... 46, 47, 49
Fair Hous. Council of Riverside Cnty., Inc. v. Riverside Two,
249 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................ 52, 54, 60
Gorton v. Todd,
793 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (E.D. Cal. 2011) .......................................................passim
Gorton v. Todd,
No. 08-3069-LKK-GGH, slip op. (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2010) ................ 18, 19, 41
Holmes v. Merck & Co.,
697 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 27
Jett v. Penner,
439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 53
Johnson v. California,
207 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) ................................................... 32, 35
Ledford v. Sullivan,
105 F.3d 354 (7th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................. 38
Leslie v. Grupo ICA,
198 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 52
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574 (1986) ............................................................................................ 52
- iv -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
McKeever v. Block,
932 F.2d 795 (9th Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 48
McKinney v. Anderson,
924 F.2d 1500 (9th Cir.), vacated on other grounds sub nom.
Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903 (1991) ............................................ 36, 38, 39
N.L.R.B. v. A-Plus Roofing, Inc.,
39 F.3d 1410 (9th Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 50
Phillips v. Beierwaltes,
466 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 50
Pollard v. The GEO Group, Inc.,
629 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2010), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. by
Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S. Ct. 617 (2012) ................................................... 46, 47
Raad v. Fairbanks North Star Borough School Dist,
323 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 54
Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp.,
77 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 1996) ........................................................................ 46, 48
Smith v. Jenkins,
919 F.2d 90 (8th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................ 54
Snow v. McDaniel,
681 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2012) .......................................................................passim
Solis v. Cnty. of L.A.,
514 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................. 28, 30, 32
Steele v. Shah,
87 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 39
Tedder v. Odel,
890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) ......................................................... 43
Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985) ...................................................................................... 46, 47
- v -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
Torres v. City of Madera,
648 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 52
United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land,
795 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1986) .......................................................................passim
Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan,
180 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 1999) .......................................................... 26, 36, 40, 42
Wilborn v. Escalderon,
789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 27
STATUTES
28 U.S.C. § 292 ........................................................................................................ 11
28 U.S.C. § 636 .................................................................................................passim
28 U.S.C. § 1291 ........................................................................................................ 3
28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................ 3
28 U.S.C. § 1915 ...............................................................................................passim
42 U.S.C. § 1983 ...............................................................................................passim
Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 804(a)(2), 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) ....................................... 28
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Eastern District of California, “Pro Bono Panel,”
http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caed/staticOther/page_1668.htm ....................... 31
D. Nev. L.R. IB 1 ..................................................................................................... 13
Fed. R. Civ. P. 31 ............................................................................................... 16, 34
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ..................................................................................................... 52
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 ............................................................................................... 46, 48
Fed. R. Evid. 706 ..................................................................................... 3, 17, 36, 38
- vi -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
L.R. 300(b) ............................................................................................................... 51
L.R. 303(a) ................................................................................................... 12, 13, 17

- vii -
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In 2007, prisoner Michael Shaw Fausett underwent an invasive, extremely
painful spinal surgery at U.C. Davis Medical Center. Upon his return to Mule
Creek State Prison, the prison’s medical staff (the “Staff”) disregarded medical
orders and failed to take medically necessary steps to manage Fausett’s pain. For
example, despite a clear physician’s order stating that Fausett should receive a
walker for use in-house and a wheelchair for longer distances, the Staff never
provided Fausett with an ambulatory device. And despite the very painful nature
of Fausett’s surgery, the Staff also failed to prescribe pain medications
recommended by U.C. Davis physicians. As a result of these wrongs, Fausett
endured significant pain and suffering.
In this civil rights action for deliberate indifference, Fausett struggled to
litigate his complex medical claims pro se while on heavy medications and while
undergoing psychiatric treatment. Through a series of erroneous rulings, the
magistrate judge severely hampered Fausett’s ability to succeed on his claims.
Fausett asked the magistrate judge, who was visiting from the District of Nevada,
to appoint counsel for him. The magistrate judge denied his request—not on the
merits, but based on the erroneous assumption that “California and the Eastern
District have [no] pool of pro bono attorneys.” Fausett then asked the magistrate
judge—three times—to appoint a neutral expert who could opine on the medical
issues in the case. The magistrate judge denied his request—not on the merits, but
based on the legal mistake that the Federal Rules prohibit appointment unless there
is a “pool of money available for the appointment.” Finally, Fausett asked the
magistrate judge to serve his treating physicians with a subpoena to answer written
deposition questions. The magistrate judge denied the request because Fausett
could not afford to pay the service fee, when in fact that fee was statutorily waived.
Crippled by the impact of the magistrate judge’s rulings, Fausett proceeded
to summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the Staff,
relying in large part on Fausett’s failure to “provid[e] an affidavit or other
statement from a physician.” The district court failed to acknowledge that the
magistrate judge had rejected Fausett’s repeated attempts to secure that very
evidence. Concluding that there was no evidence that the Staff’s treatment was
medically unacceptable, the district court granted summary judgment to the Staff.
In doing so, the district court overlooked key evidence supporting Fausett’s claims,
failed to view the facts in the light most favorable to Fausett, and drew
unreasonable inferences in favor of the Staff. This Court should reverse the rulings
below to allow Fausett to vindicate his constitutional rights.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Fausett’s complaint asserts a claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California had subject-
-2-